Mobile Technology in Undergraduate Chemistry Courses: paper presented by Dr. Michael Lewis and Dr. Layne Morsch at the American Chemical Society National Meeting, Dallas, TX (March 2014)

1. ChemDraw for iPad in organic
chemistry courses
Layne A. Morsch University of Illinois Springfield
Michael Lewis Saint Louis University
Hans Keil PerkinElmer
Patrick Diller McGraw-Hill Education
March 18, 2013
Mobile Technology in Undergraduate Chemistry
Courses
247th ACS National Meeting
Dallas, TX

2. Course Overview UIS
 Began teaching from iPad fall 2012
 Taught using a lecture plus problem solving format for
Summer and Fall
 Teaching with a flipped course model Spring 2014
 Pilot in summer class with 18 students continued in Fall
semester with 59 students
 Currently using with 40 students

3. Classroom Use
 Summer – iPads loaned from
Perkin Elmer
 In class problem solving
 Summer - Exam questions
 Student groups studying
outside class
 In class problems encourage
attendance

4. ChemDraw Structures, Mechanisms and Syntheses
Students were asked to:
 Draw a structure with 5+ carbons
that would be water soluble
 Draw the enantiomer and a
diastereomer of a structure
 Draw the product of an E1
elimination reaction
 Draw the mechanism of an SN2
substitution reaction
 Write out a several step synthesis

5. Flick-to-Share
I use Flick-to-Share to create a
class group
I can send Flicks to the whole
class
They can work out the problem
and flick the result back to me
Students that have iPads can
Flick to each other while
studying

8. Improved Learning Environment
 100% engagement in problem solving
 Students learn to draw more accurate
mechanisms
 Students gain extensive experience with
ChemDraw

9. ChemDraw for iPad Fall Student Survey | Top Findings
Working Well + Pain Points -
• Easy to draw structures, overall
• Builds better comprehension of course
material though group practice
• Helps with learning & error correction
• Prof can easily review students work in
class
• Needs effective group sharing options
• Drawing and sharing takes up class time
• Considerable learning curve to start
drawing
• Perception of it working inconsistently
Survey distributed December 11, 2013 (n=15)

10. Professor Interview | Dr. Layne Morsch (University of Illinois)
“ChemDraw for iPad continues to allow
me to force students to engage and give
them better feedback on their structures.”
“Sorting Flicks by name, date comes in
really handy. Makes it easier to grade.”
Use and satisfaction of ChemDraw for iPad in
class has improved with recently added drawing
and text tools.
Flick-to-Share not sending to >15 students at a
time still impedes use in class, with students.
Plans to increase the use of ChemDraw for iPad
in class with a ‘flipped classroom’ structure in
Spring.
Working Well +
• Engaging students in real time
• Sorting received Flicks
• Reviewing student work in class
Pain Points –
• Cannot send to a group of students at a time
• Cannot remove people from a group
Summary of interview December 6, 2013

11. Student Evaluation Details | University of Illinois
5.15.7
1 Low High
7
5.5 3.8
1 Low High
7
1 Low High
7
1 Low High
7
University of Illinois Springfield 16 Weeks of Use, December 2013 (n=15)
Ease of Drawing
Structures
Perceived
Efficiency
Overall
Satisfaction
Perceived
Usefulness
Ease of Sharing
Structures
• Easy after learning curve
• Simple, good design
• Helps with correction
• Helps students understand
materials
• Easier, quicker than paper
• Easy after learning curve
• Clean and precise
structures
• Helps with correction
• Takes a lot of time to draw
• Learning curve
• Not everyone gets or
receives 'Flicks'
• App 'acts up', feels
inconsistent
• Can learn and practice
drawing as a class
• More efficient than
paper
• Took up class time
• Easy if sharing
w/individuals
• Students not receiving
Flicks
• Takes time to receive
Flicks
• Works inconsistently
“It was hard to get at first, once
you do it is easier.”
“Now that I have plenty of
practice I really enjoy and think
ChemDraw is a great thing.”
“The buttons are simple and
self-explanatory so it’s hard to
make mistakes.”
“It’s easy and it helps students
understand bonds and
structures.”
“The app allows drawing
structures & reactions quickly
and accurately.”
“Awesome to have this program
especially since it would let you
know if something wasn't quite
right.”
“They are cleaner and more
precise than writing them by
hand.”
“It takes a lot of time to draw
structures depending on the
complexity.”
“If you don't have a lot of
experience with using it then it’s
hard to go fast.”
“It was a little difficult to
grasp however it does make
drawing structures less
intimidating.”
“Works well the majority of
the time however every
once in a while there are
glitches”
“Sometimes things don't
send & it does not work for
the Flick-to-Share.”
“I've enjoyed the added
practice with using
ChemDraw to work
problems in class.”
“Simple and easy to use as
compared to online
version.”
“It's nice to be able to do
them as a class together
and the talk about the
reactions and what was
wrong.”
“Practice is essential and
this allows for more practice
and use.”
“More useful if I was able to
receive things from my
professor.”
“It is useful for drawing
structures but sometimes
takes too long.”
“It was easy for me to share
with the instructor but when the
instructor would try to share with
us, most of the students
wouldn't receive anything..”
“When the instructor sent mass
flicks I wouldn't receive them,
yet I logged into Flick and would
receive if just sent to me.”
“I never, during the whole
semester using it, got a
structure from anyone else.”
“Annoying waiting forever to
receive Flicks from the
professor.”
“Easy as long as there was only
one or two people to share the
structures with.”
1 Low High
7
5.8

12. Student Evaluation Details | iPad Ownership
Currently own and use iPad in class (n=4)
These students rated the app higher in overall satisfaction
Ease of Drawing
Structures
Perceived
Efficiency
Overall
Satisfaction
Perceived
Usefulness
Ease of Sharing
Structures
Currently borrow iPad for use in in class (n=11)
These students rated the app higher overall in ease of drawing structures and efficiency
Ease of Drawing
Structures
Perceived
Efficiency
Overall
Satisfaction
Perceived
Usefulness
Ease of Sharing
Structures
5.35.5
1 Low High 7
5.3 3.3
1 Low High 7 1 Low High 7 1 Low High 71 Low High 7
5.0
5.05.8
1 Low High 7
5.5 4.0
1 Low High 7 1 Low High 7 1 Low High 71 Low High 7
6.1

13. Student Evaluation Details | Over Time, Semesters
University of Illinois Springfield 6 Weeks of Use, July 2013 (n=7)
Ease of Drawing
Structures Overall Satisfaction Perceived Usefulness Ease of Sharing Structures
5.0 4.6 4.35.1
1 Low High 71 Low High 71 Low High 71 Low High 7
University of Illinois Springfield 16 Weeks of Use, December 2013 (n=15)
Ease of Drawing
Structures Overall Satisfaction Perceived Usefulness Ease of Sharing Structures
5.15.7
1 Low High 7
5.5 3.8
1 Low High 7 1 Low High 7 1 Low High 7

14. 1. ChemDraw for iPad was seen by the students as largely easy to use,
after an initial learning period.
2. Lack of Flick-to-Share working effectively with groups of 15+ students at a
time impedes use in class as well as student satisfaction with the app.
Multiple students reported frustration in not receiving ‘Flicks’.
3. Students who borrowed iPads for use in class (n=11) rated ChemDraw
for iPad higher, on average, in ease of use, usefulness, and perceived
efficiency than students who used their own iPads in class (n=4).
4. Average ratings for all usability measures increased, with the exception of
ease of sharing structures, across the surveys distributed at 6 weeks of
use (summer) and 16 weeks of use (winter).
ChemDraw for iPad Fall Student Survey | Top Findings
Survey distributed December 11, 2013 (n=15)

15. Implementation at SLU
• The iPads were used in a four-week Organic II course with
26 students during the summer of 2013.
• Questions were asked of the students that involved
structure/reaction/mechanism drawing.
• Students emailed structures to the instructor.
• Credit (~1.5% of the overall grade) was attached to
participating.
• Answers were shared and discussed.
• Flick-to-Share was not used due to the short duration of the
course.
– Getting everyone enrolled quickly.
– Lack of a quick way to organize the student files.

16. Student Use and Perception
• The students reported liking the use of the technology; they
thought it added to their overall learning experience.
• This corresponded to class participation. Almost every
student submitted structures when asked.
– Even though they still got credit for submitting by the
end of the day.
• Student attendance was much higher than usual for
summer course.

17. Student Performance
• The ACS standardized exam for Organic Chemistry was given
at the end of the course, as it was for the same course the
previous summer.
• The students who used the iPads scored 6/70 higher; this
corresponds to an improvement of 17 percentile points.
• The only policy difference between the summer 2012 and
summer 2013 courses was the iPad implementation.

18. Saint Louis University 1 Week of Use (n=21)
Ease of Drawing
Structures Overall Satisfaction Perceived Usefulness Ease of Sharing Structures
“After playing around with it…
it is very easy to figure out
and and use.”
“Good for basic structures.”
“Tapping with finger is much
easier than clicking and
dragging.”
“It is slower then drawing by
pen and paper.”
“Overall the app is very user
friendly.”
“I am able to save important
reactions and use the
documents like flashcards.”
“It is helpful, but it takes some
adjustments to use the app
correctly and it has a few
features that could be
improved.”
“It’s nice to have because it
makes participating in
examples easier.”
“It aids my learning
experience.”
“Helpful for sharing and
checking work but I find it
easier and quicker to just
use pen and paper.”
“Amazingly easy and perfect!”
“Easy with the direct email link.”
“Email is fine, but can get cluttered in
the inbox. Sending multiple files at
once from a gallery is better.”
“Would enjoy a network to sign in
through classes and have a group
Dropbox type thing.”
Student Evaluation Details | Saint Louis University
5.55.4
1 Low High 7
6.0 6.1
1 Low High 7 1 Low High 7 1 Low High 7

19. Student Evaluation Details | Saint Louis University
“It’s nice to have because it makes participating in examples easier.”
“It is very useful, but still need to take notes on paper.”

20. Difficulties
 Slower to draw reactions/mechanisms than
freehand
 Manual analysis of responses
 Note Taking

21. 2121 These intentions may change without notice as we respond to customer requirements.
Newest Version
Increase # and type of arrows
Text Tool
Group Flick
Export to PNG or PDF that
students can include in lab
reports or papers
Sorting of Flicks received
Addition of periodic table that allows
creation of any molecular formula
Templates that include:
 Newman, Haworth, Fischer projections
 Bicyclics, sawhorse, chair structures

22. 2222 These intentions may change without notice as we respond to customer requirements.
Future Development
Additional templates
 Biochemistry – amino acids, DNA/RNA
 Apparatus
More closely integrate into the classroom setting
 More pilots, more learning
 Gann Academy (high school), Boston University
 ChemDraw Web
 Wider usage for “lap top generation”

23. Acknowlegments
 Hans Keil, PerkinElmer Business Line Leader, Personal Applications
 Dr. Phil McHale, PerkinElmer Product Manager
 Patrick Diller, McGraw-Hill Education
 Robin Smith, PerkinElmer R&D Leader
 Jennifer McCormick, User Experience
 Kara McElwrath, UIS Assistant Director of Client Services